IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 7 October 2010
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100011901
THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:
1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).
2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests that his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.
2. The applicant states that the school he is attending offers a veterans' discount, but will not accept a general under honorable conditions discharge and he is trying to obtain a degree for a better career and financial security.
3. The applicant provided no additional documentary evidence in support of this application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, and has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicant's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 November 1976. He completed the basic combat and advanced individual training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 64C (motor transport operator). The highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-2.
3. Records show the applicant was punished under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a lawful order on 16 December 1976.
4. On 11 July 1977, the applicant's chain of command initiated an expeditious discharge for his inability to adapt socially and emotionally to Army life.
5. On 11 July 1977, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for his contemplated separation with a general under honorable conditions discharge and its effect and rights available to him.
6. The applicant further acknowledged he understood that if his general under honorable conditions discharge request were approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.
7. On 14 September 1977, the separation authority approved the command's request for discharge under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) and directed that he receive a general under honorable conditions discharge. On 20 September 1977, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active duty) he was issued confirms he completed a total of 9 months and 22 days of active service with 46 days of excess leave.
8. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-37 of the regulation in effect at the time governed personnel whose performance of duty, acceptability for the Service, and potential for continued effective service fell below the standards required for enlisted personnel in the U.S. Army.
9. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or otherwise so meritorious than any characterization would be clearly in appropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded was carefully considered and it was determined that there is insufficient evidence to support his request.
2. The ABCMR does not grant requests for an upgrade of discharges solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans' or medical benefits.
3. The applicant's records show he disobeyed a lawful order. The applicant's chain of command initiated an expeditious discharge for his inability to adapt socially and emotionally to Army life. Based on his record of indiscipline, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standard of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_____X___ ____X___ ____X___ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
____________X_____________
CHAIRPERSON
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100011901
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100011901
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003538
The applicant requests his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 6 January 1977, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) with a general discharge. In view of the above, there is insufficient substantive evidence to upgrade his discharge to an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013045
The applicant requests his general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 18 January 1977, he was notified by his immediate commander that discharge action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 5, paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program). The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37 by reason of failure to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023623
The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. On 18 September 1977, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 5, under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). The pertinent paragraph Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5 provided that members who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120018112
In October 1977, his immediate commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program). The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of failure to meet acceptable standards for continued military service and directed that he receive a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002825
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37, in effect at the time, provided that members who had completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who had demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005394
On 28 June 1977, he was notified of his pending separation for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention under the Expeditious Discharge Program under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37. On 19 July 1977, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that he be furnished a general discharge. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001014
On 9 January 1976, his unit commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program), with a recommendation for a general discharge. The applicant was discharged with a general discharge on 30 January 1976. The applicant has not provided any evidence that he has been denied any benefit or consideration as a veteran based on the terminology utilized on his discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012302
There is no evidence in the available records to show the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. However, while a general discharge is authorized, it appears that in the applicants case a general discharge was unduly harsh under the circumstances as the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015236
On 7 March 1977, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 5, paragraph 5-37, under the Expeditious Discharge Program. There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations. The applicant's record of service included three nonjudicial punishments.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027034
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 June 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100027034 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).